Harboring Deserters
- Thread starter Peace4u
- Start date
BTW
Before anyone brings up the fireing squad for desertion:
I believe that there was only 1 person shot for desertion in the U.S. Forces. Thing is he did not really desert. He just refused to pick up his weapon. If I remember correctly Martin Sheen played the part in The Execution of Eddie Slovack. Noe Levinworth is another story. Think of basic training for 10 - 20 years.
Dave
Before anyone brings up the fireing squad for desertion:
I believe that there was only 1 person shot for desertion in the U.S. Forces. Thing is he did not really desert. He just refused to pick up his weapon. If I remember correctly Martin Sheen played the part in The Execution of Eddie Slovack. Noe Levinworth is another story. Think of basic training for 10 - 20 years.
Dave
I think that the very crux of this discussion centers on the simple fact that the American Armed Forces, are sending armed troops into a "war" that is really a police action. If you follow the history of this conflict, it started with George Sr. getting his nose blooded when Sadam tryed to off him when he was President. At that time George Sr. could not get the support of congress to mount an armed insurgence into Iraq, and was later defeated in the next election.
Serveral years later and George W. is elected to be the POTUS, and the WTC gets taken out by Bin Laden, who fronts a terrorist group. George W. promises broad retribution for this act but is stymed by the evasive Bin Laden. So George W. goes after the man that his father hated, and claiming all kinds of weopon violations (which have yet to proven ) goes to war with Iraq.
All it takes for evil to flourish is for one good man to do nothing, when the American public invade another country on trumped up charges, disparge their oldest allied trade partner, and start running the world polictical scene with brute force.. the members of that of army have a right to rebel. In combat, they would have to fight, but by not being there, desertion, they are proving their loyality to a higher concept, TRUTH...
Serveral years later and George W. is elected to be the POTUS, and the WTC gets taken out by Bin Laden, who fronts a terrorist group. George W. promises broad retribution for this act but is stymed by the evasive Bin Laden. So George W. goes after the man that his father hated, and claiming all kinds of weopon violations (which have yet to proven ) goes to war with Iraq.
All it takes for evil to flourish is for one good man to do nothing, when the American public invade another country on trumped up charges, disparge their oldest allied trade partner, and start running the world polictical scene with brute force.. the members of that of army have a right to rebel. In combat, they would have to fight, but by not being there, desertion, they are proving their loyality to a higher concept, TRUTH...
failing to stand one's post during a time of insurrection or war is a crime, I agree. If they were in Iraq and pulled this stunt then by means they should be shot on the spot.
If they (or anyone) failed to follow an order during an armed conflict I would feel the same way. If the lives of their fellow military personal was placed in peril, then they should be punished
That being said, they were not on active duty in the middle east, they were domesticated on US soil, and chose not to report for work. Let the courts decide, and if they want to ever return to US soil, they should be prepared to answer for their actions. But until then the rights of one nation should never supersede that of another.
If they (or anyone) failed to follow an order during an armed conflict I would feel the same way. If the lives of their fellow military personal was placed in peril, then they should be punished
That being said, they were not on active duty in the middle east, they were domesticated on US soil, and chose not to report for work. Let the courts decide, and if they want to ever return to US soil, they should be prepared to answer for their actions. But until then the rights of one nation should never supersede that of another.
Canada has no responsibility to return deserters or any other "criminals" that a foreign country may want if they can find moral grounds to do hold them from malicious regimes. This is the case for Canada to keep murder suspects when the death penalty is in play and the same could be true if they felt these deserters are being made an unfair example of by the Bush Administration in reponse to their "war" that is falling in support among common Americans.
Personally, I think Canada should just come out and officially grant them political refugee status.
PAL
Personally, I think Canada should just come out and officially grant them political refugee status.
PAL
Could you clarify Peace4U. Your question was about US deserters, but surely any 'betrayal', 'dishonouring a commitment' and the like applies to any deserter, not just a US one? Given that Canada's decision was not to join the coalition, what would justify treating US deserters differently from say Russian, Liberian or even Iraqui deserters?
A quick Gooogle reveals 1) Only Congress can declare war. 2) They didn't. So 3) these guys can't quite 'desert in the face of the enemy'. And, given that the President's executive decrees—one could argue unconstitutional decrees—have already cost the lives of many of their comrades, and that Mr. Bush is a guy determined to keep those he has declared 'enemies' locked up indefinitely, without charges or legal review, (can you say lettres de cachet, Star Chamber, Inquisition, oubliette?); it's not hard to imagine concluding, "This country, and its armies are in the hands of a dictator—who's gonna get me killed. Illegally. This is not the army I joined".
And let's not think of what put him in the Oval Office.
It does feel good to jerk your knee when it gets rapped, but there's a vastly greater amount that has to be processed when organs of thought are involved. For Canada the issue is simply: Does this person meet the requirements for entry as a visitor, refugee, or immigrant, or are they are properly accused of any crime subject to extradition treaties? Find "US deserters" in there, and I'm with you.
But until both counties are at war—the same war—I bet you can't.
Furthermore, if you're proposing to turn away all deserters, why that's a pretty simple bit of wording I'm sure you can come up with. But beware if you're tempted to allow exceptions—like a deserter from a death squad—or add other offenses, escape clauses or definitions, because that's where legalese, lawyers and appeal courts are born. Real life is harder than a coupla sentences on TERB.
So I'm told; how would I know?
A quick Gooogle reveals 1) Only Congress can declare war. 2) They didn't. So 3) these guys can't quite 'desert in the face of the enemy'. And, given that the President's executive decrees—one could argue unconstitutional decrees—have already cost the lives of many of their comrades, and that Mr. Bush is a guy determined to keep those he has declared 'enemies' locked up indefinitely, without charges or legal review, (can you say lettres de cachet, Star Chamber, Inquisition, oubliette?); it's not hard to imagine concluding, "This country, and its armies are in the hands of a dictator—who's gonna get me killed. Illegally. This is not the army I joined".
And let's not think of what put him in the Oval Office.
It does feel good to jerk your knee when it gets rapped, but there's a vastly greater amount that has to be processed when organs of thought are involved. For Canada the issue is simply: Does this person meet the requirements for entry as a visitor, refugee, or immigrant, or are they are properly accused of any crime subject to extradition treaties? Find "US deserters" in there, and I'm with you.
But until both counties are at war—the same war—I bet you can't.
Furthermore, if you're proposing to turn away all deserters, why that's a pretty simple bit of wording I'm sure you can come up with. But beware if you're tempted to allow exceptions—like a deserter from a death squad—or add other offenses, escape clauses or definitions, because that's where legalese, lawyers and appeal courts are born. Real life is harder than a coupla sentences on TERB.
So I'm told; how would I know?
ROTFLMAO! His handle should be RIP4u! Peace at the end of a gun and bent over a barrel, but no peace for your bum!The Shake said:
Hey Mr. soooo Peaceful if you have such strong convictions why don't you be a man of honor like Pat Tillman? Go die for your cause and mind your own business, you little rat! [rat as in someone who rats another out, I did not mean it as an insult. hahaha] "Oh look at those "deserters" up in Canada, while I sit on my couch! They should be putting their lives on the line for the convictions of the neo-cons."
I agree.The Shake said:
I agree with Shake. There's a huge difference between someone who avoids conscription and someone who has voluntarily enlisted, then gets cold feet.
Once you enlist in the army, your actions are subject to the miliatary, rather than the civil code of justice. Desertion is, and will remain, an offense subject to martial court.
Last time I looked, cowardice was not a valid basis for a refugee claim. We'd need a federal NDP government for that to happen, and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
Once you enlist in the army, your actions are subject to the miliatary, rather than the civil code of justice. Desertion is, and will remain, an offense subject to martial court.
Last time I looked, cowardice was not a valid basis for a refugee claim. We'd need a federal NDP government for that to happen, and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
A deserter is someone who volunteers for Army service and then runs away,i guess most Canadians are like that by the response and will harbor the same.Good luck.
You want to harbor murder suspects also,maybe the families of the loved ones murdered,wished you didnt feel that way.Pallydin said:
Peace4u said:
I see you missed the quotation marks (or maybe you don't understand them). The point is that any "criminals" we hold from the US are usually not guilty of a significant crime in the first place (like deserters, dodgers, and Bambi Bambenek <sp?>). So in essense we keep those who are being unfairly persecuted for no reason by special interests south of the border and we return all the true psychopaths with postage paid in full.
PAL
peace, the lawyers have a saying, "never ask a question, if you don't know the answer". Assuming, you're smart enough to know that, what was your intention in asking us? To pick a quarrel?
And any citizen of the country that copped out of WWII until Europe was overrun and Wall Street couldn't squeeze another dime out of Britain—while Canadians were dying—has no business calling anyone passive. It took Pearl Harbor to wake you guys up.
And any citizen of the country that copped out of WWII until Europe was overrun and Wall Street couldn't squeeze another dime out of Britain—while Canadians were dying—has no business calling anyone passive. It took Pearl Harbor to wake you guys up.
Well how is your military doing now,since your all knowing.I wouldnt bet there arent real criminals up North,and not just the ones you say are mistreated down here.Wake up look around.oldjones said:
The Shake said:
Shake - I disagree.
Signing up for military service does not - despite popular misconceptions - abrogate individual conscience, not legally and not morally. A soldier can be ordered to do all sorts of horrible things, and later can claim innocence precisely because he was "following orders." Of course, the rest of us feel - and justifiably so - that this simply is no excuse, and indeed soldiers have been put on trial and executed (Nuremberg) despite the fact that they "followed orders."
Now, to my mind if "following orders" cannot grant blanket immunity for immoral actions, then niether should the refusal to follow orders in matters of conscience be subject to proscecution. I don't believe for a second that these soldiers would receive a fair trail, nor do I think any trail would be entirely justfied. Those subject to unfair prosecution should have safe haven within our borders.
Once these soldiers have made it clear that they do not feel the war they are being asked to fight is just, the army and they should part ways. I know, supposedly if the army allowed this kind of thing to go unpunished there would be mass desertions. First, I would suggest that most soldiers would not desert even if there were no legal sanctions. Second, if the army is concerned, perhaps they should take a second look at what they are asking their soldiers to do.
Peace - Your posts are incoherent and stupid. Have a nice day.
Similar threads
